and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Hide Tags

In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid [#permalink]

Show Tags

16 Nov 2013, 09:31

5

This post wasBOOKMARKED

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

52%(02:02) correct
48%(01:05) wrong based on 301 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid off to save money. However, a decrease in the number of teachers generally results in a decrease in student performance. Thus, the same school districts that are laying off part-time teachers to save money will eventually have to hire more tutors to counteract diminished student performance.

The author is arguing that

A. diminished student performance will keep school districts from laying off part-time teachersB. laying off part-time teachers to save money will result in other costs to the school districtsC. many part-time teachers who are laid off will have to retrain for other types of jobsD. school districts that are laying off teachers will eventually rehire many of themE. school districts will not save money by laying off part-time teachers

Re: In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid [#permalink]

Show Tags

16 Nov 2013, 10:53

1

This post receivedKUDOS

B . Here's why:

Premise1: Part time teachers being fired by schools to save money.Premise 2: Students grades decrease because of decrease in no. of teachers.

Conclusion: Schools that are firing teachers to save money will NEED TO HIRE tutors to help students. As in, schools will anyways end up spending money. Nobody knows if it'll be still profitable or not. The argument simply says that costs are being saved by laying off, HOWEVER, schools will end up HIRING tutors so some cost implication will be there!

A. diminished student performance will keep school districts from laying off part-time teachersIncorrect: Not mentioned anywhere.

B. laying off part-time teachers to save money will result in other costs to the school districtsCORRECT. Exactly what the argument is implying.

C. many part-time teachers who are laid off will have to retrain for other types of jobs.Incorrect . Out of scope.

D. school districts that are laying off teachers will eventually rehire many of themIncorrect. Author never talks about re-hiring the same teachers.

E. school districts will not save money by laying off part-time teachersContender. But not as strong as B because we don't know if the schools will still actually NOT SAVE any money. We know that schools will have to incur costs because of lay off but we don't know if that'll be profitable or not.

Re: In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Nov 2013, 02:32

surbhi87 wrote:

B . Here's why:

Premise1: Part time teachers being fired by schools to save money.Premise 2: Students grades decrease because of decrease in no. of teachers.

Conclusion: Schools that are firing teachers to save money will NEED TO HIRE tutors to help students. As in, schools will anyways end up spending money. Nobody knows if it'll be still profitable or not. The argument simply says that costs are being saved by laying off, HOWEVER, schools will end up HIRING tutors so some cost implication will be there!

A. diminished student performance will keep school districts from laying off part-time teachersIncorrect: Not mentioned anywhere.

B. laying off part-time teachers to save money will result in other costs to the school districtsCORRECT. Exactly what the argument is implying.

C. many part-time teachers who are laid off will have to retrain for other types of jobs.Incorrect . Out of scope.

D. school districts that are laying off teachers will eventually rehire many of themIncorrect. Author never talks about re-hiring the same teachers.

E. school districts will not save money by laying off part-time teachersContender. But not as strong as B because we don't know if the schools will still actually NOT SAVE any money. We know that schools will have to incur costs because of lay off but we don't know if that'll be profitable or not.

I am maybe wrong, but the passage says: "a decrease in the number of teachers generally results in a decrease in student performance" and "to save money will eventually have to hire".

So, in option B "laying off part-time teachers to save money WILL result in other costs to the school districts" is wrong, it should be MIGHT.

Option C "many part-time teachers who are laid off will have to retrain for other types of jobs" seems to be correct.The passage states that part-time teachers are being laid off to save money. So, if the teacher keeps working as part-tyme teacher, he or she might not get a new job, because part-time teachers are being laid off. In order to get a new job, they will have to became something else, such as tutors or full-time teachers.

--------------------+KUDOS if I made you think in a different way. Thanks.

Re: In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid [#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Nov 2013, 00:04

I hope "E" is Best.

A. diminished student performance will keep school districts from laying off part-time teachersSchools may reduce the no.of lay offs instead of fully.B. laying off part-time teachers to save money will result in other costs to the school districtsMay be true but not specific.C. many part-time teachers who are laid off will have to retrain for other types of jobsOut of scope.D. school districts that are laying off teachers will eventually rehire many of themSchool may retain other teachers.E. school districts will not save money by laying off part-time teachersIt is what clearly mentioned in the argument.

Re: In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid [#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Nov 2013, 01:24

1

This post receivedKUDOS

schittuluri wrote:

I hope "E" is Best.

A. diminished student performance will keep school districts from laying off part-time teachersSchools may reduce the no.of lay offs instead of fully.B. laying off part-time teachers to save money will result in other costs to the school districtsMay be true but not specific.C. many part-time teachers who are laid off will have to retrain for other types of jobsOut of scope.D. school districts that are laying off teachers will eventually rehire many of themSchool may retain other teachers.E. school districts will not save money by laying off part-time teachersIt is what clearly mentioned in the argument.

Hi schittuluri

B and E are contenders. But E is not OA, the correct answer is B.

The argument just says that if schools lay off part-time teachers, they will have to hire tutors. It means schools can save money by laying off part-time teachers, but they have to pay for NEW costs - costs of hiring tutors. B clearly says the same.

E, however, says that school will not save money. It's too extreme. For example, schools can save 100 usd by laying off part-time teachers, but they have to pay 80 usd for tutors. Clearly, school can save money. Hence, E is not always correct.

Hope it helps.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Re: In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid [#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Nov 2013, 13:20

amgelcer wrote:

I am maybe wrong, but the passage says: "a decrease in the number of teachers generally results in a decrease in student performance" and "to save money will eventually have to hire".

So, in option B "laying off part-time teachers to save money WILL result in other costs to the school districts" is wrong, it should be MIGHT.

Not really. Generally as in usually, as in it DOES result in a decrease in student performance. Notice the strong language : "To save money WILL HAVE TO hire" . This means additional costs 1000% !

amgelcer wrote:

Option C "many part-time teachers who are laid off will have to retrain for other types of jobs" seems to be correct.The passage states that part-time teachers are being laid off to save money. So, if the teacher keeps working as part-tyme teacher, he or she might not get a new job, because part-time teachers are being laid off. In order to get a new job, they will have to became something else, such as tutors or full-time teachers.

This doesnt attack the conclusion as much. This is steering away from the main point. Concentrate on the fact that laying-off of teachers will lead to schools hiring more tutors (as stated in the argument). This is no way indicates anything about what the teachers' fate will be or how their careers will move fwd. Hope this makes sense

Re: In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid [#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Nov 2013, 13:23

schittuluri wrote:

I hope "E" is Best.

A. diminished student performance will keep school districts from laying off part-time teachersSchools may reduce the no.of lay offs instead of fully.B. laying off part-time teachers to save money will result in other costs to the school districtsMay be true but not specific.C. many part-time teachers who are laid off will have to retrain for other types of jobsOut of scope.D. school districts that are laying off teachers will eventually rehire many of themSchool may retain other teachers.E. school districts will not save money by laying off part-time teachersIt is what clearly mentioned in the argument.

Exactly like pghai said, E is too extreme. School districts may/may not "save" money. All we know from the question is that schools are firing, but they may have to hire again! Nobody knows if this will result in profilt/loss/breakeven !

Re: In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid [#permalink]

Show Tags

29 Nov 2013, 06:19

I endorse sthittuluri POVE is the high probable answer: the conclusion says " more tutors.." and w.r.t the laid-off tutors. thus, in worst case even the cost will be same if not lower. The comparison is between no. of tutor laid-off to potential required. Moreover, in option B no where it is mentioned that Laying off will cost other costs. If one refutes the above then pl explain me that in such case, "more tutors" is more w.r.t to whom.

Re: In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid [#permalink]

Show Tags

13 Apr 2015, 17:25

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Re: In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Oct 2015, 15:04

B is the winner. The argument says that there will be costs. E is tempting, but it says that will not save. It can be the case that even if it hire tutors, it will still save $D can't be, since we do not know the relation between teacher and tutor.

gmatclubot

Re: In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid
[#permalink]
26 Oct 2015, 15:04